Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 673 F.2d 1031 - Maxwell v. Sumner

Maxwell v. Sumner’s Empirical Analysis

673 F.2d 1031 · 1982

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
1
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably 48 Cal. 3d 843 - People v. Burton (1989), Armant v. Marquez (1985)

47 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

3201982199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Faretta v. California · Wainwright v. Sykes · Fay v. Noia · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein D Stanton · Sumner v. Mata

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The [district court’s] finding[ ] that Maxwell’s] ... motion was not made for the purpose of delay [is] based on the fact-finding tribunal’s experience with the mainsprings of human conduct, and on its experience in conducting'trials and observing defendants’ behavior. We therefore, review the district court’s determinations as findings of fact, which, although based solely on documentary evidence, will be set aside only if clearly erroneous.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]f a claim has been briefed and argued before the [California] court of appeal, failure to assert it in the petition to the California Supreme Court does not normally waive the claim ... [W]hen the California Supreme Court grants a hearing, its order effectively vacates the order of the court of appeal; the California Supreme Court then decides each issue in the case as if it were on original appeal from the trial court, “regardless of the grounds relied on in the petition.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[f]indings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.